1927 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.  You can not remove a person's emotions and therefor their desire to be free (or even potential desire to be free) and then say that they are free not to obey.  Tranquil must obey unless told explicitly by higher authority not to because the emotional context that permits freewill is removed.  Calling tranquil free is a bitter joke.  They are as free to disobey as your IPod....and that makes them slaves.

If you wish. You're the one who claimed they were forced to stay-- I'm simply telling you they're not. They're free to go, and some in fact do if there's a logical place for them elsewhere (which is rare). They're certainly not blind to the fact that the world would not welcome them. I'm also not sure how you equate the loss of emotion with the loss of free will. If the Tranquil saw a reason not to follow an order, they would do so. They are not automotons.

I am just not sure how to explain it to you.  There were a couple of 18th century English Philoshers whose names escape me at this late hour that did so much better, but here goes.  You say that Tranquil are free to leave, but to leave would require the desire to leave.  Without emotion, how does one have that desire?  They don't.  Your own codex entries DO call Tranquil little more than walking and talking furniture (i.e. automatons).  You can not cut off a person's legs and then claim with any degree of reason that you are free to walk away afterwords.

The same applies to tranquil (and lobomized mental patients).  You can not remove a person's freewill (which is what tranquility essentially does....Karl says so explicitly when briefly detranquiled) and then claim that you aren't chaining them....and thus they aren't slaves.

I'm sorry but I'm sticking to my guns on this one.  Involuntay tranquil ARE slaves.  They are owned by the Chantry and the local Templars (as Ser Alrick will gleefully tell you).

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I have to say I am happy that David Gaider came in and refuted the "all mages are slaves" myth.

It's foolish how those of us who based our arguments from dialogue from the games we purchased and the codex entries said such a thing...

...maybe you'd like to share your views on Act III of DA2 since you're being so open?

[Darth Krytie]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Meridith is not a member of the Chantry Clergy and certainly not the Grand Cleric.  She had no more right to declare a Right of Annulment than KCGregoire did (under far more dire conditions).  She was obligated to seek permission from Divine Justina in absence of a local Grand Cleric,

And you decided this when, exactly?

A Knight-Commander is second-in-command next to the Grand Cleric. With Elthina's death, Meredith was legally in command of the Kirkwall Chantry-- such as it was, and certainly in the absence of any ranking Revered Mother or the Divine herself. Cullen's objection was not that her invocation of the Rite was illegal, it was that it was unjustified.

Do you enjoy these threads or are you sitting at the screen with an irritated scowl, annoyed at assumptions made?

Modifié par Darth Krytie, 03 avril 2011 - 07:05 .

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Meridith is not a member of the Chantry Clergy and certainly not the Grand Cleric.  She had no more right to declare a Right of Annulment than KCGregoire did (under far more dire conditions).  She was obligated to seek permission from Divine Justina in absence of a local Grand Cleric,

And you decided this when, exactly?

A Knight-Commander is second-in-command next to the Grand Cleric. With Elthina's death, Meredith was legally in command of the Kirkwall Chantry-- such as it was, and certainly in the absence of any ranking Revered Mother or the Divine herself. Cullen's objection was not that her invocation of the Rite was illegal, it was that it was unjustified.

Since when?  It was always my understanding (based on what KC Gregoire says in DAO in a much more dire situation in the middle of a civil war where he is out of contact with the Grand Cleric) that the Templars don't have that authority and AREN'T in the Chantry chain of command at all.  Your own codex entries regarding the structure of the chantry also denies what you just posted, so please explain again why all these prior lore and codex entries are wrong?

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's foolish how those of us who based our arguments from dialogue from the games we purchased and the codex entries said such a thing...

When it's all your argument is about and you refuse to see anything other than that and dismiss entire arguments because of it, then yes it's foolish.

[Vormaerin]

LobselVith8 wrote...

And how is allowing a religious institution that preaches that mages are cursed (a word we repeatedly hear in the Magi Origin and even from the Knight-Commander herself) better than mages governing themselves?

You are arguing that the status quo needs to be changed.  The burden of proof that you are producing a better system and not merely a different system is on you.

But I'll answer that.  In a properly functioning Circle, the KC reports to superiors elsewhere (Possibly the Grand Cleric possibly a Templar General or something).   So its possible to get redress of grievances, in theory.   Elthina can't or won't for some reason, but should.

If the First Enchanter is a tyrant, what are you going to do?  Who does he answer to?

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I have to say I am happy that David Gaider came in and refuted the "all mages are slaves" myth.

It's foolish how those of us who based our arguments from dialogue from the games we purchased and the codex entries said such a thing...

...maybe you'd like to share your views on Act III of DA2 since you're being so open?

Especially when we find out just now that those same codex entries may as well be written in pencil.....

-Polaris

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...
Your own codex entries DO call Tranquil little more than walking and talking furniture (i.e. automatons).

Reference?

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I have to say I am happy that David Gaider came in and refuted the "all mages are slaves" myth.

It's foolish how those of us who based our arguments from dialogue from the games we purchased and the codex entries said such a thing...

...maybe you'd like to share your views on Act III of DA2 since you're being so open?

It's foolish to take an opinion stated in the game as fact, when so many evidence and definitions were being stated over and over again, but of course were ignored. Now all these circumlocutions are done at last and the myth refuted.

And I am not sure what you are saying. My views on Anders, I've stated right here. If you mean my opinion that Act 3's ending was horrible and there was barely any character development of the main characters (Meredith and Orsino), then those views will not change, but they have nothing to do with this topic.
So...what's your point?

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Your own codex entries DO call Tranquil little more than walking and talking furniture (i.e. automatons).

Reference?

The DAO codex on the Tranquil (you can find it in the fade if you didn't take he magi origin) do explicitly call Tranquil little more than walking talking furniture.  It's not an anology I made up.  It's official (well apparently as official as anything is right now which seems to be not much).

-Polaris

[Oneiropolos]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Meridith is not a member of the Chantry Clergy and certainly not the Grand Cleric.  She had no more right to declare a Right of Annulment than KCGregoire did (under far more dire conditions).  She was obligated to seek permission from Divine Justina in absence of a local Grand Cleric,

And you decided this when, exactly?

A Knight-Commander is second-in-command next to the Grand Cleric. With Elthina's death, Meredith was legally in command of the Kirkwall Chantry-- such as it was, and certainly in the absence of any ranking Revered Mother or the Divine herself. Cullen's objection was not that her invocation of the Rite was illegal, it was that it was unjustified.

Yay! We got an answer to the legality of it. Thank you very much.  *tries not to creepily fangirl you more* 

[David Gaider]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Also, without creativity I'm dubious that the Formari would have ever been able to discover how to create half the magical items/runes/mabari they do.

The subject of creativity with regards to Tranquil is an interesting one. There are all sorts of assumptions that people-- such as Templars-- make about Tranquil that are very likely quite off base. A Tranquil would no doubt be happy to explain the difference, if anyone cared to ask them. Few do.

Tranquil can be creative-- insofar as a very logical scientist might be. They pursue a means to an end, and are capable of coming up with alternate solutions to problems. They are, however, methodical to a fault. They will pursue the most reasonable solution at hand until it proves inviable. They will not change their methods or seek to create something different unless there is a clear reason to. They are not taken by inspiration, and some might say what they lack is intuition or the ability to act on hunches. The fact that they do not get bored and take no pleasure out creating (other than a certain satisfaction that comes from a task well-performed) takes much of the impetus away for them to change what they do. Some would mistake this for a lack of free will. Perhaps some day they will be surprised to learn how very wrong they are.

[Lucy Glitter]

Also, can I add, that a good writer presents. They don't force an opinion on someone. The writing team for Dragon Age has presented two sides;

First side: Keeping mages under a lockdown for their whole lives
Second side: Freeing mages

Now, within that universe, there are a lot of characters who are for (or against) those two sides. Some don't even care. That does not reflect the writers in any way. Doing such things gives more depth to a world and makes it more interesting.

To me, having mages be locked up is a logical thing to happen in a fantasy world. Mages hold very dangerous abilities, and it is natural for humanity to fear something like that. Therefore, it is not such a stretch to have someone decide that they should make mages in their world, locked up, so to speak. Whether or not you believe a mage is as dangerous as a loaded gun is another argument.

I can't believe I had to explain how writing works to someone.

p.s. Whatever the choice made in the ending, the mages revolt, so to speak. So, doesn't that kind of point to the writers putting a thought into it? I have never come across anything didactic in the DA franchise.

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's foolish how those of us who based our arguments from dialogue from the games we purchased and the codex entries said such a thing...

When it's all your argument is about and you refuse to see anything other than that and dismiss entire arguments because of it, then yes it's foolish.

You mean when I have the audacity to disagree with you?

[IanPolaris]

Oneiropolos wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Meridith is not a member of the Chantry Clergy and certainly not the Grand Cleric.  She had no more right to declare a Right of Annulment than KCGregoire did (under far more dire conditions).  She was obligated to seek permission from Divine Justina in absence of a local Grand Cleric,

And you decided this when, exactly?

A Knight-Commander is second-in-command next to the Grand Cleric. With Elthina's death, Meredith was legally in command of the Kirkwall Chantry-- such as it was, and certainly in the absence of any ranking Revered Mother or the Divine herself. Cullen's objection was not that her invocation of the Rite was illegal, it was that it was unjustified.

In almost direct contravention of established game lore.  There is nothng in the Chantry Codex entires (which outlines the Chantry's chain of command) that puts Templars in Chantry authority ANYWHERE. 

-Polaris
Yay! We got an answer to the legality of it. Thank you very much.  *tries not to creepily fangirl you more* 

[Mnemnosyne]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Koyasha wrote...

I don't really concur that free will requires emotions.  However, the process of becoming tranquil seems to take more than just emotions - it seems to stifle any creativity or original thought, so a tranquil mage seems unlikely to ever question their situation in the first place.  Unless someone comes along and specifically asks, 'do you really want to be here?  Are there other places you would be more productive, comfortable, etc?' they seem unlikely to ever think of those questions themselves.  So even if they are capable of making those decisions, they may never occur to the tranquil mage.

I would like to question the claims that Tranquil can't/don't reflect on their position with this Codex entry: Journal of the Tranquil.

Also, without creativity I'm dubious that the Formari would have ever been able to discover how to create half the magical items/runes/mabari they do.

Interesting.  I'd long since forgotten that codex entry.  That does seem to indicate that a tranquil is as capable as anyone of considering their position and whether or not they would rather be doing something else.  It does seem a little odd that there appear to be no tranquil who have chosen to do anything else.  A tranquil would clearly be capable and effective in many roles outside the Circle, so if they can reflect on their own position, and they can choose to do otherwise and are not prohibited from leaving and going anywhere they choose, it does seem curious that we haven't heard of a single one that has done so.

Amusingly, if tranquil are fully capable of reflecting on situations as much as anyone else, they would actually make quite capable rulers, as well as judges/magistrates.  They can study a problem entirely objectively and make a completely unbiased decision by their very nature.

[Camenae]

IanPolaris wrote...

The DAO codex on the Tranquil (you can find it in the fade if you didn't take he magi origin) do explicitly call Tranquil little more than walking talking furniture.  It's not an anology I made up.  It's official (well apparently as official as anything is right now which seems to be not much).

-Polaris

But the codex says it's written by First Enchanter Josephus (if Warden is a Mage) or Brother Genitivi (if Warden is not a Mage).  So....it's a secondary source, and the language contained in a secondary source is not necessarily fact.  It is someone's opinion.  Actually it is weaker.  It is what the writer said this imaginary person's opinion is.

Gaider = primary source.  Primary source >>>>>>> secondary source.

[Statulos]

David Gaider wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Also, without creativity I'm dubious that the Formari would have ever been able to discover how to create half the magical items/runes/mabari they do.

The subject of creativity with regards to Tranquil is an interesting one. There are all sorts of assumptions that people-- such as Templars-- make about Tranquil that are very likely quite off base. A Tranquil would no doubt be happy to explain the difference, if anyone cared to ask them. Few do.

Tranquil can be creative-- insofar as a very logical scientist might be. They pursue a means to an end, and are capable of coming up with alternate solutions to problems. They are, however, methodical to a fault. They will pursue the most reasonable solution at hand until it proves inviable. They will not change their methods or seek to create something different unless there is a clear reason to. They are not taken by inspiration, and some might say what they lack is intuition or the ability to act on hunches. The fact that they do not get bored and take no pleasure out creating (other than a certain satisfaction that comes from a task well-performed) takes much of the impetus away for them to change what they do. Some would mistake this for a lack of free will. Perhaps some day they will be surprised to learn how very wrong they are.

So they work pretty much like Geth in Mass Effect. Geth do not feel pain or plaeasure, they do not get angry nor passionate but they do understant that they want to live on, they want a set of goals archived and they try to be effective on doing so.

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Also, without creativity I'm dubious that the Formari would have ever been able to discover how to create half the magical items/runes/mabari they do.

The subject of creativity with regards to Tranquil is an interesting one. There are all sorts of assumptions that people-- such as Templars-- make about Tranquil that are very likely quite off base. A Tranquil would no doubt be happy to explain the difference, if anyone cared to ask them. Few do.

Tranquil can be creative-- insofar as a very logical scientist might be. They pursue a means to an end, and are capable of coming up with alternate solutions to problems. They are, however, methodical to a fault. They will pursue the most reasonable solution at hand until it proves inviable. They will not change their methods or seek to create something different unless there is a clear reason to. They are not taken by inspiration, and some might say what they lack is intuition or the ability to act on hunches. The fact that they do not get bored and take no pleasure out creating (other than a certain satisfaction that comes from a task well-performed) takes much of the impetus away for them to change what they do. Some would mistake this for a lack of free will. Perhaps some day they will be surprised to learn how very wrong they are.

You are wrong about scientists, and I say that as Physicist.  Emotions and emotional insight is just as essential as careful calculation if you want to do good, groundbreaking science.  An utter tranquil-like person makes a terrible scientist.  Intuition depends on emotion.  Don't take my word.  Ask any repulable and well respected scientist and he'll almost certainly say the same.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean when I have the audacity to disagree with you?

When I disagree, I'm called a bigot that supports slavery. If you can easily handwaive arguments, why can't I do the same with quotes from the Lead Writer? Is it because his posts are "pathetic"?

[sphinxess]

IanPolaris wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.  You can not remove a person's emotions and therefor their desire to be free (or even potential desire to be free) and then say that they are free not to obey.  Tranquil must obey unless told explicitly by higher authority not to because the emotional context that permits freewill is removed.  Calling tranquil free is a bitter joke.  They are as free to disobey as your IPod....and that makes them slaves.

-Polaris

How the hell you equate removing magic powers and the capacity for emotion to removing free will is beyond me.

But you've been arguing about this since long before DA2. <_< I'm amazed you've finally conceded mages aren't slaves.

Gold star to Gaider.

It's our emotions that define how and why we makes our choices.  Without emotions we have no more freewill than a programmed computer.  I have always said this and the game play and lore seems to bear me out on this.

BTW, Lob as made the argument that all mages are slaves.  I have not.  I restrict the slavery argument to tranquil.

-Polaris

I do love the argument - tranquil no longer have the will to leave and the circle provides a home and work so they aren't slaves. They don't have to obey and indeed trying to get one to move from his work station would prove difficult.

I would contend then that the actual act of forcing someone to become tranquil is an act of slavery - you have put shackles on a persons brain by killing him in the fade that can never be removed.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Your own codex entries DO call Tranquil little more than walking and talking furniture (i.e. automatons).

Reference?

The DAO codex on the Tranquil (you can find it in the fade if you didn't take he magi origin) do explicitly call Tranquil little more than walking talking furniture.  It's not an anology I made up.  It's official (well apparently as official as anything is right now which seems to be not much).

-Polaris

You mean this one? Not only is that entry dependant on whether the reader is a mage or non-mage, you're taking the opinion of a non-mage author over the opinion of a mage who would be more familiar with exactly what the process/results are.

Okay...that's selective of you.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 03 avril 2011 - 07:16 .

[Maugrim]

IanPolaris wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Your own codex entries DO call Tranquil little more than walking and talking furniture (i.e. automatons).

Reference?

The DAO codex on the Tranquil (you can find it in the fade if you didn't take he magi origin) do explicitly call Tranquil little more than walking talking furniture.  It's not an anology I made up.  It's official (well apparently as official as anything is right now which seems to be not much).

-Polaris

We've known that almost all Codex sources written by an in universe source come with all the in universe bias since oh before DAO came out.  Welcome to  2009!

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It's foolish to take an opinion stated in the game as fact, when so many evidence and definitions were being stated over and over again, but of course were ignored. Now all these circumlocutions are done at last and the myth refuted.

Definitions were provided in support of such a term being used, specifically when we're hearing characters say the tranquil have no agency in DA2. The language explicitly said in Dissent and what we hear from the tranquil mage in the Gallows about being commanded by Cullen, along with the what's said by the main character, other characters, what we hear from the templars, and what we read from the codex entries in both installments. It's hardly foolish to base an argument on the evidence provided.

How odd that it takes a messageboard for "the myth" to be refuted.

Dave of Canada wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean when I have the audacity to disagree with you?

When I disagree, I'm called a bigot that supports slavery. If you can easily handwaive arguments, why can't I do the same with quotes from the Lead Writer? Is it because his posts are "pathetic"?

When did I call you a bigot who supports slavery? You realize I never said David Gaider's posts were pathetic? Do you even realize who you're addressing?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 03 avril 2011 - 07:19 .

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
Since when?  It was always my understanding (based on what KC Gregoire says in DAO in a much more dire situation in the middle of a civil war where he is out of contact with the Grand Cleric) that the Templars don't have that authority and AREN'T in the Chantry chain of command at all.  Your own codex entries regarding the structure of the chantry also denies what you just posted, so please explain again why all these prior lore and codex entries are wrong?

Sigh.

Greagoir is out of contact with the Grand Cleric. He has no reason to believe she is dead or had no successor.

As for the chain of command, this relates to who is in command of the Circle of Magi specifically. The hierarchy of the Chantry itself is its own, separate structure-- as the codex would explain. I'm pretty certain it does not, however, go into this particular instance. Unless you care to point me to which particular codex I'm contradicting?

LobselVith8 wrote...
Definitions were provided in support of
such a term being used, specifically when we're hearing characters say
the tranquil have no agency in DA2. The language explicitly said in
Dissent and what we hear from the tranquil mage in the Gallows about
being commanded by Cullen, along with the what's said by the main
character, other characters, what we hear from the templars, and what we
read from the codex entries in both installments. It's hardly foolish
to base an argument on the evidence provided.

Look at the codex entries being linked to regarding the Tranquil on the last page or two alone. They say different things. They don't contradict-- they are perspectives based on who's talking. A great number of people don't really understand what the Tranquil are about, and there's no reason for us to explore it further in-game-- yet. If we did, we would have a reason to expound on the topic. Otherwise, it's not something we would do just to provide fodder for forum arguments.

Modifié par David Gaider, 03 avril 2011 - 07:23 .